Karnataka Court November 1986 Judgments
A.K. Subbaiah Vs. B.N. Garudachar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-26-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR100
Held:No doubt, every person in our Democratic Republic has got a freedom of speech and expression. But, however, that right is controlled by a corresponding duty which he owes to another. The rights and duties cannot be separated. Every right has got a corresponding duty. So long as one does not transgress the duty he owes to another, his right would remain unfettered. But if the speech he wants to make results in or is likely to result in an injury to at other, that right stands controlled by the corresponding duty which he owes to another. Merely because the law recognises the truth or justification as a defence, it does not give him a right to speak anything he likes. It is no doubt true that one has got a right to expose corrupt practices found in the society. But there are methods and ways by which one can expose them. But if in the guise of exposing corrupt practices a person makes statements which are per se defamatory, he cannot be excused on the ground that he might take up th...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Abdul Khander Vs. Vijaya Bank and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1986
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas199(Kar); ILR1987KAR970
P.A. Kulkarni, J.1. This is a revision by the judgment debtor (sub-tenant of the original tenant against whom the order of eviction was passed) against the order dated December 11, 1984, passed by the Principal Munsiff, Madikeri, in Execution Case No. 95 of 1982 overruling the objections of the present revision petitioner. 2. The Vijaya Bank Ltd. Madikeri, had filed an eviction case in H.R.C. No.12 of 1966 in the court of the Munsiff, Madikeri, under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act against the tenant, M.P. Abdul Rahman. The eviction was ordered on July 7, 1967. The tent, Abdual Rahman, not being satisfied with the eviction order, approached the District Judge, Courage, in H.R.C.A. No.10 of 1967. The learned District Judge, by his rider dated July 2, 1968, set said the order of eviction passed by the learned Munsiff and dismissed the eviction petition. The landlord, Vijaya Bank Ltd., not being satisfied with the order passed by the learned District judge, approached thi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhadra Reddy Vs. Shanthamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-25-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant209; ILR1987KAR15
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These two appeals are disposed of by the following common judgment, as they arise out of the single judgment of the Court below in O.S.No. 67/1974dated 30-3-1976. In fact, the first of the appeals is by the defendants while the second of the appeals is by the Plaintiffs. The defendants have prayed in their appeal that the judgment and decree of the trial Court under appeal be set aside while the plaintiff in the second of the appeals has sought for enhancement of the maintenance awarded to her by the trial Court.2. For convenience, we proposed to refer to the parties by the rank assigned to them in the trial Court.3-4. The plaintiff Shanthamma filed O.S.No. 67/1974 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, under S. 18(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), inter alia alleging that she was the legally wedded wife of the 1st defendant P. Bhadra Reddy, the marriage having taken place on 18th August, ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamurthy Vs. Hemanna
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1466
Murlidher Rao, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs in O. S. 93 of 1971, challenging the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Civil Station, Bangalore, dated 22-2-1975, by which their suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction is dismissed, with costs Suit property is S.No. 107 of Byadarhalli Village in Civil Station, Bangalore.2. Plaintiff-1 claims to be the purchaser of different sites, alleged to have been formed in the land, on 8-1-1960, from Hemanna-1st defendant; he has sold different sites to other plaintiffs, who in turn have sold them to yet others. On the same day i.e. 8-l-1980, other plaintiffs, also claim to have purchased various sites in the said survey number from 1st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are owners in possession. Admittedly on the alleged sites no structures have come up and the land continues to be vacant.3. In retrospect, it is necessary to narrate certain facts, regarding this land, which has been the subject matter of ...
Tag this Judgment!Yellappa Vs. Yellavva Kom Subray Gowda
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-21-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR683
Rama Jois, J.The petitioner has presented this petition, aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, allowing the appeal of respondent-I and setting aside the order of the Asst. Commissioner, by which he had declared the sale of certain agricultural lands in favour of respondent as invalid.2. The facts of the case, in brief are as follow: 7 acres 12 guntas of land in block No. 72 (C.S No. 104) of Gadiyal Village in Haliyal Taluk was granted to the petitioner under the Land Grant Rules, by the Asst. Commissioner, Karwar, dated 25-5-1959 on the ground that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste. There was also a non alienation clause attached to the grant. The condition was that the petitioner should not sell the land granted to him within a period of 15 years from the date of grant. The land so granted to the petitioner in the year 1959 was sold in auction on 5-6-1968 by the Asst. Commissioner for recovering the takavi loan taken by the petitioner from the Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Pushpammal Vs. Ganapathraj Kishanchand Jain
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-20-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4188
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. The decree-holder's wife Pushpammal had filed an eviction case under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act in H.R.C.No. 7346 of 1980 against the judgment-debtor alleging that she required the petition premises bona fide and reasonably for the use of her husband and also alleging that her husband was going to retire in a short time and that the pension that he might get was insufficient for the maintenance of herself and her husband and that her husband would start a cycle shop in the petition premises and augment the income. The said eviction case in H.R.C. No. 7346/1980 resulted in an order of eviction as per the order dated 31-7-1982. The judgment-debtor being 'aggrieved by the said order of eviction approached this Court in C.R.P. No. 1922 of 1983. In the said Revision the judgment-debtor did not challenge the findings recorded by the Court below, and requested only for time to vacate the petition premises. The decree-holder had remained absent in th...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India and anr. Vs. U.K. Vasappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1986
Reported in: [1989]66CompCas375(Kar)
Chandrakantharaj Urs, J.1. This appeal is by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, by its zonal manager at Madras and also the divisional manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Udipi. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge at Shimoga in O. S. No. 17 of 1972. The judgment is dated January 20, 1976. 2. The facts leading to the suit and consequently this appeal may be stated as follows: Respondent-Vasappa, who was the plaintiff in the trial court prayed for a decree against the respondents (the present appellants before us) in the sum of Rs.1,05,030.30 together with costs and current interest. The said sum was claimed under two insurance policies taken out by his father, bearing Nos. 39595964 for Rs.5,000 and 39681872 for Rs.1,00,000. Notice charges of Rs.30 was included in the claim. The suit became necessary because the Life Insurance Corporation of India refused to pay the claim made by the plaintiff. Their repudiation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Vasappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-19-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Kant216; ILR1987KAR1
Chandrakantarai Urs, J.1. This appeal is by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, by its Zonal Manager at Madras and also the Divisional Manager of the same Life Insurance Corporation of India at Udupi. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge at Shimoga in O.S.No. 17/1972. The Judgment is dated 20th Jan. 1976.2. The facts leading to the Suit and consequently this Appeal may be stated as follows :-Respondent Vasappa, who was the plaintiff in the trial Court prayed for a decree against the respondents (the present appellants before us) in the sum of Rs. 1,05,030-30 together with costs and current interest. The said sum was claimed under two insurance policies taken out by his father bearing Nos. 395964 for Rs. 5,000/- and 39681872 for Rs. 1,00,000.00. Notice charges of Rs. 30/- was included in the claim. The suit became necessary because the Life Insurance Corporation of India refused to pay the claim made by the plaintiff. Their repudiatio...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Kshama Kapur Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-1986
Reported in: ILR1986KAR4007
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In these two Writ Petitions, the following question of law arises for consideration :'Whether in view of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short), an Administrative Tribunal constituted under Sub section (1) or (2) of Section 4 of the Act, has no jurisdiction to entertain applications regarding redressal of the grievances of civil servants of the Union or of the State concerned, as the case may be, in respect of service matters or matters relating to recruitment in the absence of an order made by the Government or any other authority and to issue appropriate directions or to make appropriate orders, and if so, whether in such circumstances a Writ Petition praying for the issue of an appropriate direction or order is maintainable before this Court ?'2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow:(i) In W.P. No. 19860/86: The petitioner is a Medical Officer in the service of the Central Government in the Department of Health. She ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwa Bharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Bangalore ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-14-1986
Reported in: ILR1987KAR767
ORDERChandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In these matters rule nisi was issued by me on 29-5-1986. Statement of objections was directed to be filed in one week, on 23-6-1986. Thereafter time was extended. Statement of objections was filed. Matter was heard on 18-8-1986. It was recorded in the order sheet that there was no prima facie evidence in favour of holding that the respondent - Bangalore Development Authority (in short the B.D.A.) had the authority to levy fee or tax on transfer of sites. Reliance placed on Section 29 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (in short the B.D.A. Act) was also of no assistance as there was no Notification by the Government either past or current and valid on the date which would enable the B.D.A. to levy fee on transfers. In that circumstance, the matter thereafter-wards was called on request on subsequent dates of hearing. On 30-9-1986 on the prayer made by the counsel for B.D.A. the case was adjourned on payment of costs fixing the Advocate's fee at Rs...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »